the benghazi issue is not about the attack itself, it's about the spin and coverup of what happened and why that ensued immediately thereafter.

the IRS issue is not about the correctness/appropriateness of their non-profit status (all of which were granted by the way), it's about the abuse of power in singling them out for purely political purposes, to intimidate them into silence.

but that's what you blind leftists will do. you'll pick an irrelevant angle to the discussion and hang on to it for dear life as if every one ELSE is stupid.

...to the same ol' crowd still bringing up GWB... I can't wait until the next jack-hole gets in office so we can say, "dang, Obama sucked big time, so it's okay that this guy sucks worse"

"blind leftists"? Oh the irony! You really don't get it Pound. The Republicans trying to call out Obama is like a cheating Pastor ministering to sinners. You think that a Democratic President is responsible for everything in govt, but get upset at the suggestion that a Republican President is responsible for anything. The stock market is soaring, the deficit is slowing getting smaller, and jobs are stable and even gaining. Compare that to the disaster that the previous Prez left and you have to scratch your head as to what you guys could be thinking.

It's a disgrace to think that thousands of dead American soldiers and tens of thousands wounded in that pointless war in Iraq play a distant second fiddle to 4 dead Americans. But that's how Fox News has commanded you and your like minded right wing buds to place your priorities. You'd have to be brain dead to not see this as little more than politically motivated outrage orchestrated by your puppet masters. But then again puppets are brain dead.

what about the insurmountable deficit and the inevitable collapse of the dollar if we keep it going? When he was elected he said the current deficit was un-American, but then he went ahead and increased it more in 4 years than GWB did in 8. Come on now. I wasn't a GWB fan either, so that card doesn't apply.

I don't even care about the AP scandal and neither does America. The government can look at ANY phone calls or e-mails that ANY American makes(homeland security) so now the press is upset they are taking numbers of them? BFFHD!

I'm just going to bow out now, this will lead nowhere and I know fly135 will not give an inch.

You mean I'm just too obstinate to change my position based on an argument that provides no information to support your point? Despite the fact that the numbers are easily obtainable to support my claims, that doesn't matter to you.

I don't recall anyone that has ever questioned the US Dept of Labor's job numbers until Obama was President. All of a sudden it's all hand waving because some Fox News commentator who you probably can't even remember spun a story about how the numbers are a ruse.

Good lord you Conservatives couldn't possibly be more transparent in your political motivations. And that's why Liberals won't forget who's party was in the White House when all the bad crap went down. You cannot ignore all the things that we should be outraged about when your party is holding down the fort, and then expect us to take you seriously now.

what about the insurmountable deficit and the inevitable collapse of the dollar if we keep it going? When he was elected he said the current deficit was un-American, but then he went ahead and increased it more in 4 years than GWB did in 8. Come on now. I wasn't a GWB fan either, so that card doesn't apply.

Sorry DC, but you are wrong. Obama did not increase the deficit, he decreased it. Perhaps you never bothered to look, or perhaps you are confused as to the difference between deficit and debt.

The deficit was increased drastically when Bush was still in office. It has been reduced since then. Granted the deficit is still really high, but Republican Presidents have never demonstrated an ability to reduce deficit spending in this lifetime.

There is nothing criminal about the Benghazi investigation. The GOP leaders are not saying this is a criminal issue, but a "someone screwed up" issue. Are they going to find that things could have been handled better? My guess is, absolutely. Just like with about any presidency you can find an issue that could have been handled better. Bush with Iraq, Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Reagan with the Contras and Beirut, etc., etc. Is someone going to be charged with a crime? My stronger guess is, no. This is only an issue because A) the GOP thought it was going to cost Obama the election. It didn't. So now, B) they think this could cost Hillary the election in 2016. She is looking to already be running away with the next election so the GOP needs a good scandal. A Swift Boat type of scandal. A Watergate Scandal. It's the only chance of Hillary not winning if she chooses to run.

There is no White House connection to the IRS scandal or the AP scandal. But what amazes me is many of the people that are up in arms about the AP are the same geniuses that voted for and then voted for again on the Patriot Act. You guys gave the govt the right to listen to whoever's calls they deem is of interest.

You can play the presidential blame game til the cows come home. I mean one could say Iraq was a result of Clinton's fault for not enforcing the ceasefire agreements that made Iraq suspect in the first place.

I kind of gave up on political threads because most people believe its a president that is bad. Its not, its the mindset of the people. You basically have the rich and poor conservatives, and the rich and poor liberals. Power waxes and wanes based on the health of these 4 groups. In the end, conservative politics will always win out in a free society. Notice I didnt say rebublican. 60 years ago dems were the conservative ones. The point is, as long as you believe in conservative politics, you have nothing to worry about because it will always return to conservative politics. Why? because conservative thought is the necessities-workhorse of society. They are the ones who get things done. look at the four groups again. You have the rich conservatives whose fortunes come from providing essentials, the poor conservatives who are the labor force, the rich liberals whose fortune comes from non-essentials, and the poor liberals who are the jobless victims. When things go bad, who will succeed? When our currency is nil, whose skills will be valuable? When food becomes scarce, who will save us, the trucking magnate, the farmer, the actor, of the welfare recipient? the farmer will grow it, the trucker will get it to the people, How will the actors skillset help? Or the welfare abuser?

I dont care who is in office, or what party name the affiliate with. I want which ever party happens to be practicing the more conservative politics to be running the show. IMO, Reagan and JFK were reading out of the same playbook.

And if we are so overrun with liberal thought that the conservatives are squashed, we will be ripe for invasion. Who are the warmongers of the world again? Conservatives!! We will just under someone elses conservative rule.

We're all in the same boat, sorry for the pun. As long as we keep pointing fingers at each other the politicians will keep sticking it to us...doesn't matter whether they have a D or R after their name. Life will continue to be good for them and the crap will roll downhill to us.

"You have the rich conservatives whose fortunes come from providing essentials, the poor conservatives who are the labor force, the rich liberals whose fortune comes from non-essentials, and the poor liberals who are the jobless victims."

It's supposed to be, it's a generalization to illustrate a point. Like most generalizations/stereotypes, the adults understand that it isn't 100% all encompassing while also acknowledging the consistent observations that generated them.

Jason, this thread is the President blame game. That was the purpose of the initial post.

Also I'm curious as to what you mean by conservative? I understand the label conservative, but not sure what kind of conservative you think will always win. If you mean fiscal conservative I have to wonder if we can ever get back to that. The US has adapted it economic mechanisms that do not work well in a conservative environment. Didn't the fed just print a bunch of money to buy toxic mortgage assets? How many countries can do that? Pretty sure Greece, Spain, and France can't. But given that you are calling Reagan a Conservative, I'm also guessing that you don't mean fiscal conservative. Because he obviously wasn't that.

Come to think of it the money supply is always expanding. Normally I'd say that the Fed can't buy anything so it must be giving the money away to somebody. But now they are buying the bank's trash. So how has it been expanded in the past? Pretty sure the Fed hasn't been giving it's freshly printed cash to the poor. My guess is that they have been giving it to those Conservatives.

If you mean conservative, as in everyone ought to get a job and contribute, then I question where those conservatives are. Because most of the conservatives I see think that we should send our money overseas buying oil and foreign made goods while the fed prints money and gives it to bankers. Although they'd like the fed to not print money unless they saw the consequences of that. IOW it appears that conservatives live in a fantasy world where everyone who falls behind in the rat race will die off instead of vote. Fat chance.

I'm speaking more in terms of attitude and methodology, rather then specific fiscal or social agenda.

I guess I see "conservative" as being capitalistic opportunists with a sense of national pride based on individual merit. An example would be JFKs commitment to go to the moon. It wasnt about how much it cost or the risk of finding nothing of consequence. It was about capitalism, dominance, and leading the world. it was about doing it because we could and it was in our countries best interests. Was it "fiscally conservative"? Probably not! I see conservative as self focused, doing things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Reagan was hardly fiscally conservative, but he believed in values and championed the American spirit of individual accountability, and peace through strength.

Juxtaposed, is the liberal mindset. The socialist mindset of the few carrying the load for the many. The idea that we should make our policies based on everyone elses feelings instead of what is best for our country. It is the wrench in the gears of introspective focus and progression. Its the entitlement culture who vote themselves monies from the treasury. The idea of cutting funding to NASA because the moon is a waste of time\money. What we did in 10 years under conservative rule with 1950s tech, is going to take us 50 years with state of the art tech under this trainwreck government we have now.

Ask anyone who was in France in the Spring of 1940, they can tell you what happens when a country becomes so weak with liberal socialistic infighting and polarization that they grow a target on their forehead. Who took note? The conservative party led Germans! Thats right, conservative doesnt equal good, and liberal doesnt equal evil. Conservative = self aware and working towards building ones self. Liberal = absolving personal accountability and trying to not offend others with selfish acts. That's why I say, the country who shuns its own conservative politics is destine the be ruled by someone elses conservative politics. The risk is that theirs may not be as nice. It always comes back to it.

Oh those are facts and the bureau of labor statistics publishes them, but fails to use them in the unemployment calc for some unknown reason. Its only become a factor since unemployment went sky high. This really isn't a presidential problem, but failing to look at the right numbers to come to a logical conclusion can work for the people that don't care to see the truth, but people with half a brain and follow economics are not fooled.

Paul, so people with half a brain aren't fooled by statistics where they actually have no information to support what they believe? Do you really believe that the unemployment situation has not improved... i.e. actual unemployment *and* rate of increase in unemployment between now and when Obama took office? Because that is your argument with my initial claim, and there is scant little information out there that supports you.

When people complain that Obama is the worst President it looks as if they are complete idiots. The correlation between the state of the nation, it's decline, and Presidents has GWB looking like a disaster. WRT policy judgements nearly everything went wrong during his term. As stagnant as the economy was when Jimmy Carter was in office he didn't have the benefit of the Fed loaning money at zero percent to stimulate the economy. Which BTW destroys safe investment opportunities for retired people, while the beneficiaries of zero interest loans complain about paying SS. Plus Carter reduced deficit spending, unlike his Republican successor.

I have no problem with deeply examining the problems and finding fault were it's due so that we don't make the same mistake twice. But this thread isn't about that. Nor is most mainstream politics. I don't even think that most people really understand the issues that well. The fact that the right wing cries wolf so much over Obama has made it difficult to know when they have a legitimate complaint.

I had no idea that anyone was claiming 5% unemployment. In fact there has been much talk about under 6-6.5% being nearly impossible to achieve. However, the link you presented to make your point is from 2008!

"It is such an utter disturbance that people are quoting 5 percent as the unemployment rate when 9.2 percent of our population is either underemployed, working part-time, or flat out given up and not working."

Quote:

Originally Posted by psudy

And I don't recall saying anything about them not improving at all. Just that its not close to the % that is being fed to the public and ingested by liberals.

I really don't think too many liberals are ingesting the 5% your link suggested. Probably because no one is saying it. And I don't recall claiming any particular number other than improvement when you choose to belittle my assertion by saying I will post charts you don't agree when quizzed

BTW the dept of labor shows 7.9%, 7.7%, 7.6%, and 7.5% for the months of 2013. And have never shown anything close to 6% or below during Obama's term.

As always you missed the entire point. I know the article is old. The point I was trying to get you to understand was what you put in bold. You can easily replace the numbers with todays numbers and the point remains the same, that the unemployment numbers are grossly understated.

^Has it always been that way? It's funny that when Obama was inaugurated in 2009, there was no perceived "understatement" of unemployment numbers when the number was close to 9%. Was unemployment understated when W, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. were in office? If not, I guess we should add another bullet to Sam, I mean Tucker, I mean Brealy's original list. And why we're at it, why not add the Challenger explosion, 9/11, the attempted assault on da Moose, and the Kennedy assassination to the list?

^Has it always been that way? It's funny that when Obama was inaugurated in 2009, there was no perceived "understatement" of unemployment numbers when the number was close to 9%. Was unemployment understated when W, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. were in office? If not, I guess we should add another bullet to Sam, I mean Tucker, I mean Brealy's original list. And why we're at it, why not add the Challenger explosion, 9/11, the attempted assault on da Moose, and the Kennedy assassination to the list?

Dude, you are so damn funny. I will have to show this post to Ryan this weekend at the lake.

The funny thing is that Ryan was correct, you are a fan boy. Can anyone believe how easily you find it to worship the President? He appears to do no wrong in your mind. You remind me of this guy:

Can you say cult of personality?

When Obama goes down, and he will, sooner or later, I can't wait to hear what you will say then... I figure you will use the race card, but that is just my guess.

^Has it always been that way? It's funny that when Obama was inaugurated in 2009, there was no perceived "understatement" of unemployment numbers when the number was close to 9%. Was unemployment understated when W, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, etc. were in office? If not, I guess we should add another bullet to Sam, I mean Tucker, I mean Brealy's original list. And why we're at it, why not add the Challenger explosion, 9/11, the attempted assault on da Moose, and the Kennedy assassination to the list?

Really? put your thinking cap on now. Do you think the factors such as the, amount of people that have left the work force, or the "working part time for economical reasons" were large enough to be of concern when unemployment wasn't high? No. Those factors get concerning when we have periods of prolonged high unemployment.

Much the same as Watergate did for Nixon, this scandal will go somewhere. Like Watergate, the scandal did go somewhere when Nixon's own party started to attack and turn on him. Baucus and Rangel are both turning with others to follow. Another reason why this scandal is just like Watergate is that Nixon didn't order the tapes, just like Obama didn't order the targeting of conservatives, but Nixon, like Obama is doing now, actively participated in the cover up. Obama is actively participating in the cover up.

We have something like 21 Democrats running for reelection in the senate and only 14 Republicans. Of the 21 Democrats I think, but haven't looked it up, many are from "Red States". These Democrats that are up for reelection in "Red States" will start to distance themselves from Obama. I bet several will turn on him.

As always you missed the entire point. I know the article is old. The point I was trying to get you to understand was what you put in bold. You can easily replace the numbers with todays numbers and the point remains the same, that the unemployment numbers are grossly understated.

Which has little relevance to this thread. Not only that but you said.... "its not close to the % that is being fed to the public and ingested by liberals.".

You do realize that an article claiming that the numbers were underestimated during the Bush presidency does not suggest anything about "liberals" ingesting erroneous data.

This thread is about a comparative analyses (and I use analyses loosely) of Presidents. It would be unfair to Obama to underestimate unemployment during GWB and not underestimate now.

Face it... you insinuated that I was incorrect when I claimed employment figures are better now than when Obama took office by discrediting any sources I might provide. Then you stated that you were not in disagreement with my claim. Then claimed liberals were ingesting incorrect data and when pressed for more than a feeling provided a link suggesting conservatives were the one's doing the ingesting.

The other reason why these scandals will go somewhere is the fact in all his other scandals he had a media that was complicit. With the AP scandal his most ardent fans in the media are turning against him! Chris Mathews even felt his leg stop tingling...

Really? put your thinking cap on now. Do you think the factors such as the, amount of people that have left the work force, or the "working part time for economical reasons" were large enough to be of concern when unemployment wasn't high? No. Those factors get concerning when we have periods of prolonged high unemployment.

Much the same as Watergate did for Nixon, this scandal will go somewhere. Like Watergate, the scandal did go somewhere when Nixon's own party started to attack and turn on him. Baucus and Rangel are both turning with others to follow. Another reason why this scandal is just like Watergate is that Nixon didn't order the tapes, just like Obama didn't order the targeting of conservatives, but Nixon, like Obama is doing now, actively participated in the cover up. Obama is actively participating in the cover up.

We have something like 21 Democrats running for reelection in the senate and only 14 Republicans. Of the 21 Democrats I think, but haven't looked it up, many are from "Red States". These Democrats that are up for reelection in "Red States" will start to distance themselves from Obama. I bet several will turn on him.

Is this just like your prediction on Obama losing to Romney in a landslide??? Just like your thread on Sheriff Joe's damning evidence of Obama's fake birth certificate???

And of those 14 republicans, at least a few of them will say something stupid during the races and cost themselves the election. So if a few democrats lose their seats it will all come out in a wash.

The acting Director of the IRS, Miller, said today that he found out who authorized the IRS targeting conservatives but he cant remember who it was. This is going somewhere.
There are pending civil suits.This is a bipartisan committee and Dems. are not making excuses-they are inquiring. Lastly, Congress is investigating from the top to lock the bosses in to a story under oath. There is already enough to charge Lerner and Miller with purgery. When they are charged, they will puke their story all over the White House.

I predict Obama goes down as one of the worst presidents in history. We'll just have to see.

Arguing politics is for impotent fools. It never changes. All the same rediculous arguments from both sides. Our political system is broken from the inside. It's made up of a bunch of ego-maniacal fools looking for a way to leave their names in the history books. America is nothing that it's founders envisioned. It's shameful the stuff that I hear from our "representatives." Unfortunately most pay little attention as long as their favorite show is on.

The most intelligent people i know have no idea how to vote. There is no viable candidate. A lot of people in my generation are sick of the errosion of our constitution, but are ashamed of both the conservatives and the liberals. The GOP may gain some traction if they would drop religion and abortion from their repetoire. The democrats would be much more appealing if they stopped believing that we need the government to be our nanny.

Both parties are made up of liars. What we are fed on the news are small fragments of truth. Believe what you want.

^I think it is all in the eye of the beholder. Reagan had the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Iran-Contra affair, Star Wars, four tax increases, the air traffic controller firings and many think he is the greatest president of all time. Time has a way of making us forget. If you are a Republican, chances are you will think Obama was terrible just like most Democrats consider Bush to have been an awful president. Maybe some of it is earned, but most of it has to do with that R or D that follows after the name.

The truth is a lot of the American people view the "conspiracies" in the same way they view Congress repeatedly holding votes to repeal Obamacare. The facts end up getting diluted in the political pissing contests.

"What we did in 10 years under conservative rule with 1950s tech, is going to take us 50 years with state of the art tech under this trainwreck government we have now. "
We didn't have an Iphone 7 years ago! Technology advancements will continue ^2
"Are you watching CSPAN? It is going somewhere..."
Nope

Except, the I.G. didnt do an investigation. He isnt able.He cant subpeona, he cant take statements under oath.
It was an audit. Do the numbers show wrong-doing?
Lets not forget, the IRS has alreadcy apoligized for inapproprite targeting of conservatives.
There has been no evidence of liberals being singeld out for extra scutiny, only fast tracking.

And, conservatives have been voicing complaints since before the election and the Dems ignored them.

^That is an inaccurate statement. There were "progressive" groups that were "singeld out for extra scutiny", including one group that had it's application denied. Not to mention, the official that instituted the BOLO list at the IRS, is a conservative (I may be wrong, but I believe he is a Bush appointee). It's weird that when the news got out about the IRS not solely targeting conservative groups on Tuesday, Issa began tweeting about Benghazi.

Personally, I feel any political group (liberal, conservative, anarchist, etc.) should not get any sort of tax benefit under the guise that they are doing "social work". I think they should have all been denied.